We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ EvidenceWhy can’t you be more polite, and stop questioning our integrity and science?Paul Driessen

********************************

We don’t need no stinkin’ evidence

Why can’t you be more polite, and stop questioning our integrity and science?

Paul Driessen

****************************

Who can forget the classic confrontation between Humphrey Bogart and Alfonso Bedoya in “Treasure of the Sierra Madre.” It’s now being reprised in living color, featuring banditos from East Anglia, Penn State, Washington and the UN.

“We’re Federales,” they tell us. “You know, climate police. Evidence? We ain’t got no evidence. We don’t need no evidence. We don’t have to show you any stinkin’ evidence.

“Hold your tongue, hombre. We ain’t trying to do you any harm. Why don’t you try to be a little more polite? Why don’t you just throw us a little more money, and stop questioning our integrity and science?”

The United States alone has spent over $30 billion on alarmist “climate science” over the past 20 years – plus another $35 billion on renewable energy – based on the banditos’ tales of global warming catastrophe, if we don’t slash fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions.

Their reports were “peer-reviewed” by networks of fellow alarmists who tied every temperature, weather and wildlife anomaly to global warming and carbon dioxide. When challenged, they claimed the “science is settled” and stonewalled requests from experts who did not accept dire predictions of planetary mayhem – and wanted to examine the raw temperature data, computer codes and analyses.

Suddenly, however, the world got a glimpse into the mindset and machinations of these tax-funded catastrophists. Thousands of emails revealed systematic, concerted collusion to conceal and delete data, manipulate temperature trends that contradicted predictions of dangerous warming, stifle debate, and pressure scientific journals to publish only alarmist studies … and exclude dissenting analyses.

This fraudulent science is the basis for congressional cap-tax-and-trade legislation, EPA’s pronouncement that CO2 “endangers” human health and welfare, and the new global governance treaty being debated in Copenhagen. The actions will result in huge taxes on energy use, reduced liberties and living standards, millions of lost jobs, and a massive transfer of wealth from energy-consuming families and businesses to governments and their allies.

The proposed Copenhagen treaty authorizes the “transfer of technical and financial resources” from developed countries to developing countries, to help them address climate change impacts allegedly caused by hydrocarbon use in industrialized nations. Free or low-cost technology transfers would include electrical generation and pollution control equipment and patents. “Financial resources” would tally $50-200 billion per year, most of it apparently from the United States.

The money would come from fines for noncompliance with CO2 emission rules, a global “carbon tax” on energy use, a new levy on air travel, and “mandatory contributions” as high as 1% of GDP, paid by (formerly) rich developed countries, as new foreign aid for corrupt officials in poor nations.

One would think such actions would be based on rock-solid science. One would be wrong. It’s time to ask the critical question – which the White House, UN, EPA, “mainstream” media (especially the Associated Press, New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN) have refused to consider:

What evidence backs up the terrifying disaster claims, the calls for drastic “solutions” that won’t work, to a crisis that extensive evidence strongly suggests is speculative or even illusory?

Reliable satellite temperature measurements span most of the planet. However, they only cover the last 30 years – and for the past 15 years show stable and then declining temperatures, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. So climate crisis scientists have focused their “research” on ground temperatures.

However, nearly half of the world’s remaining ground-based gauges are in the United States, and cover just 1.8% of the Earth’s surface. Moreover, as meteorologist Anthony Watts has demonstrated, most of those gauges are close to air conditioning exhausts, tarmac, blacktop and other urban heat sources. So they read high, and then are further “adjusted” upward, corrupting climate records, models and analyses.

Most of Siberia’s stations were shut down years ago, leaving that vast frigid region devoid of reliable data, and further tilting average global temperatures upward. Britain’s combined marine and land-based temperatures were “value-added” (aggregated, averaged and manipulated) by its East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) – which then tossed or lost all the original raw data, so no one could check its methodologies, honesty or accuracy. (Try that tactic with your friendly IRS.)

The incomplete, averaged and manipulated ground temperature data were then fed into computer models that reflect our still limited understanding of climate causes and dynamics; assume CO2 is the primary driver in climate change; and poorly analyze the vast, complex, chaotic planetary climate system. The models have never been able to forecast climate accurately, even one year in advance, much less 50 or 100. They can’t reproduce prior years’ climates. They failed to predict the stable and declining temperatures of the past 15 years.

But even that didn’t conjure up the desired “manmade climate crisis.” As a CRU programmer put it, the only way the models can produce “the proper result” is when programmers apply a “very artificial correction,” use “low pass filtering at century and longer time scales,” and “include a load of garbage.”

Back in 1999, CRU director Phil Jones reported that he’d “just used [Penn State climatologist Michael Mann’s] trick … to hide the decline” in average global temperatures. But in October 2009, US climate scientist Kevin Trenberth moaned that alarmists still “can’t account for the lack of warming and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Nevertheless, “peer reviewed” scientific journals somehow produce “consensus” among “mainstream” scientists, offer “unequivocal” evidence of disastrous manmade global warming – and give the IPCC, White House, EPA and Congress the “proof” they need to justify treaties, laws and regulations that will send energy costs skyrocketing. Compliant media outlets whitewash the email and science scandal, and trumpet the latest alarmist claims. And voila, like Freddy Krueger in “Nightmare on Elm Street,” the predicted warming crisis is back, just in time for Copenhagen.

Evidence tampering like this would get legal cases thrown out of court – and land the manipulators in jail. To use it in advancing economy-wrecking energy policies is criminal.

Just one week ago, President Obama promised jobs summit attendees, “We will do everything we can to bring down the unemployment rate.”

Within hours, he stepped up his arm-twisting for cap-tax-and-trade in the Senate, announced that he was going to Copenhagen to lobby for a new climate treaty, endorsed still more restrictions on producing America’s vital, abundant hydrocarbon resources, and gave EPA the go-ahead to blackmail Congress by decreeing that carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare.

These decisions set the stage for job-killing government control of our energy, economy and lives. If they are implemented, millions of Americans will freeze jobless in the dark.

______________

Paul Driessen is senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), which sponsors the All Pain No Gain education campaign and petition against job-killing global warming policies, and the ClimateDepotwebsite for the latest news and views on climate change. He is also a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power – Black Death.

The mainstream media have been trying to find Al Gore in order to interview him about the revelations that the research data supporting “global warming” was cooked—pardon the pun.

Here is my exclusive “interview” with him. You will find the source of his quotes at the end of this Q & A.

Q: Is it true that you lost your bid to become president because of the media?

A: I don’t want to leave the impression that the media’s unwillingness to focus on the global environment was the only reason why the issue failed to ignite serious debate during the campaign.

Q: A lot of people thought you have made too much about an environmental crisis. What do you say to them?

A: For me, the environmental crisis is the critical case in point: now, every time I pause to consider whether I have gone too far out on a limb, I look at the new facts that continue to pour in from around the world and conclude that I have not gone nearly far enough.

Q: Do you still maintain that human beings are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels, driving automobiles, and such?

A: One doesn’t have to travel around the world to witness humankind’s assault on the earth. Human civilization is now the dominant cause of change in the global environment. Humankind is now changing the climate of the entire globe to a degree far greater—and faster—than anything that has occurred in human history.

Q: So, despite the fact that it’s been revealed that scientists in England, America and elsewhere; those affiliated with the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, were falsifying their data, do you still believe in global warming?

A: The theory of global warming will not be disproved, and the skeptics are vastly outnumbered by former skeptics who now accept the overwhelming weight of accumulated evidence.

Q: So you’re still convinced, eh?

A: Siberia is one of the regions of the world that seems to be warming most rapidly.Q: It’s that bad, eh? What role does capitalism play in all this?

A: The partial blindness of our current economic system is the single most powerful force behind what seem to be irrational decisions about the global environment. Modern industrial civilization, as presently organized, is colliding violently with our planet’s ecological system.

Q: That sounds serious, Al. What can we do?

A: The United Nations might consider the idea of establishing a Stewardship Council to deal with matters relating to the global environment.

Q: But, Al, aren’t the Kyoto Protocols based on the data provided by the United Nations Environmental Program and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? If the IPCC has been using phony scientific data all these years, maybe it isn’t a good idea to turn the environment of the Earth over to the UN. Well, let me finish up by asking how you feel about automobiles?

A: We now know that their cumulative impact on the global environment is posing a mortal threat to the security of every nation that is more deadly than that of any military enemy we are ever again likely to confront.

Q: Really? What do you propose we do about automobiles?

A: It ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a twenty-five year period.

Q: So capitalism is bad. Automobiles are bad. And human civilization is bad. No disrespect Al, but you sound loonier than a spotted owl.

All the quotes attributed to Al Gore were taken directly from his book, “Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit”, published in 1992. The Earth is in a new, natural cooling cycle that began in 1998.

So far, Al Gore, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his documentary, has not been available for interviews.

They are called “Millennials” and, with the election of Barack Obama, have been dubbed “Generation O.” Born from 1980 to 2000, they are as different from their parents as previous generations were different from theirs.

It is common that older generations frequently look at the new one as creatures from another planet. Every new generation develops its own slang, has its own cultural heroes, and most importantly has been imprinted by the events of their early years as well as the kind of care they received from their parents.

What distinguishes the Millennials is the way, not just events, but technology has transformed how they interact with each other and the world. Not only are they computer literate, but the Internet has allowed them to have friends from around the world who are available at the touch of a keystroke.

Events, of course, are important. My generation grew up during and after World War II. It was a time of enormous economic growth, of the U.S. ascendancy to being a superpower among nations. We lived through the Korean conflict that followed WWII in the 1950s, the birth of rock’n roll and, by the time the 1960s arrived, and I was beginning my 20s the Civil Rights movement erupted.

Assassinations marked that decade and the beginning of a long war in Vietnam that ended the lives of more than 50,000 young men born barely a generation after my own. Together we witnessed the first and only resignation of a President as the result of a criminal enterprise in the White House.

The Millennials had not yet been born. For them, the Soviet Union with its missiles pointed at American cities would be ancient history by the time they turned ten years of age. Red China would be a nation with which we did an enormous amount of trade. Europe would become the European Union. The Middle East would be a place that exported oil and terrorism

For the Millennials, the great trial their generation would face would be terrorism. For them and older generations, September 11, 2001 would change the entire dynamic of world affairs. The wars they know are the two invasions of Iraq; the latter of which has become their Vietnam. Two other events imprinted themselves, the bombing of the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City and the murders at Columbine High School.

While growing up, the Millennials led a busy, structured life in the 90s and this first decade of a new century. Their parents were devoted to them and the feeling was returned. They were told they were smart and to be inclusive and tolerant of all races, religions and sexual orientations. They were accustomed to being team players and they took being connected 24/7 for granted via cell phones and the Internet. This was a generation that was thoroughly nurtured.

It was and is a generation that was deep-fried in every environmental notion, no matter that its science was lacking or deliberately false. Surrounded by the benefits of technology, they have been told that much of it threatens the future of the planet.

In a nation where two percent of the population feeds the rest of us with plenty left over for export, they have no real connection with the Earth they worship, knowing nothing about how crops are grown or livestock is maintained and brought to the marketplace. Instead, they worry about “endangered” species and are fearful of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, all of which help generate an abundant food supply. Foolishly they worry that the poles are melting and the seas are rapidly rising, neither of which is happening.

As their parents came of age in the Reagan era of the 1980s, they grew up during the feckless years of the Clinton administration, questioning their parents about the sexual dalliance of the President while deluged with cultural messages that casual sex called “hooking up” was acceptable.

When George W. Bush became President, they would witness, not only 9/11, but the governmental debacle in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the torment of a strange “war against terror” being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan. At home, there was no terror, but few would or could make any connection between those active conflicts and the steady degrading of the threat al Qaeda represents.

It is, therefore, no surprise that the Millennials were entranced by the message of “change” offered by President-elect Obama, excited by the prospect of electing the first Afro-American President, and expecting, as my New Orleans friends like to say, to let the good times roll on.

There is, therefore, considerable irony that the Millennials are a generation looking at the same disintegrating economy their great-grandparents lived through in the 1930s and 40s, until a world war provided full employment and the post-war years were an explosion of innovation and growth.

It is presumed that the lessons of the past have been learned and monetary institutions will address the current problems, but underwriting the entire economy is public trust and confidence. If that disappears, so does the economy.

Slowly, the Millennials are discovering that the politicians their parents sent to Congress were so profligate, so stupid, and so intent on their own acquisition of wealth and power that they created the current financial crisis.

And now they are learning that those same people are returning to power! The President-elect is surrounding himself by the Clintonians who failed to comprehend the changing global dynamics, focusing instead on Green fairytales of “energy independence”, “global warming”, and the ill-founded belief that global institutions like the United Nations would or could solve international conflicts.

The Millennials, now in their twenties and thirties, are saddled with debt, watching jobs disappear, and so utterly devoid of any knowledge of their nation’s history that they know the names of the judges of American Idol, but cannot name the three branches of the American government, nor grasp that real enemies do exist and must be defeated if America is to endure. (The exception, of course, are those serving in our military.)

Their grandparents, the “Boomers”, are beginning to retire and will add to those who benefit from the many “entitlement” programs that have been enacted since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and succeeding presidents. Their parent’s primary asset, their homes, are losing value. A university education now leaves them emerging into the workplace with debt.

The “change” that will be thrust upon them is a cornucopia of “sacrifices” they will be required to accept in the name of environmentalism and globalism. Sufficient energy will become scarce within a decade and a government that is rapidly socializing banks, investment and insurance firms, may be forced to let a major industry, the Detroit auto manufacturers, go bankrupt before it can be reformed.

Norman Thomas, a former U.S. Socialist Party candidate for President in the 1940s, predicted that, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

The Clintons are like a bad rash that no medicine you swallow, or ointment you rub on it, can make go away.The Clintons have that sort of staying power.Completely oblivious to the depth of low estate in which so much of the public holds them, they hang on to power.Like an addict lusting after the next fix they seem to be willing to go to any lengths to maintain a place for themselves near the center of power. Like old, tired, comic book characters they plod through the pages of our history long after their embarrassing antics have lost their power to amuse.

I remember the euphoria that sped through the bloodstream of much of America when the Clintons were ushered out of the White House the first time around. The battle cry of conservatives, the country over, was: “Take out the trash!”And we THOUGHT we had.Turns out we were mistaken.We underestimated the willingness of the Clintons to do whatever it takes to stay connected to the center of power in Washington, DC.

So… we learned over the weekend that Obama would make public, actually CONFIRM, something we have all known for many weeks now, his choice for Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.If Obama had wanted to find some way to tell us all (in no uncertain words) that a deal was struck with Hillary and Bill during the primaries he couldn’t have found a better way to do it.I wonder if he understands how weak this makes him appear in the eyes of… not only the American voters but of the armies of diplomats the world over?

I cannot believe the man understands what he will be doing by nominating Hillary. Does he understand he will get Bill, too?Does he understand the danger for embarrassment the Clintons bring to his administration? Apparently not.Or, is he so puffed up by his own ego, and the Obama Battalions in the Mainstream Media, that he actually believes he can muzzle the Clintons or keep them on a leash?

Does Obama understand the administration he, or his minions, is/are constructing is actually the Third Clinton Administration?Does he understand the Clinton’s fingerprints are all over the people he has chosen, or been forced to choose, to fill the slots in the next administration so far?I don’t think he does.It is beginning to look more and more like an Obama figurehead government. So far, there is no Obama imprint on the next presidential administration… at all.Well, look at it for yourself… and you cannot help but be convinced that Obama is being run by someone, certainly not himself.

We are more convinced, than ever, that Obama was chosen for the presidential candidate’s slot precisely because of his inexperience and his naiveté and his inability to stand up to the master politicians… the Clintons.Obama was their ticket, all along, to a return to the center of power.

The Obama boosters in the Mainstream Media, and that includes darned near all members of the media, are busy propping up that façade so carefully placed around the group of Clintonites Obama has been directed to choose.(What, you don’t think he chose those people himself, do you?)They’re being referred to, already as the “best and the brightest.”Well us old mossbacks, who have been around for more than two decades, and have the scars to prove it, have heard and seen all this before. The JFK administration was referred to that way.Right off the bat, Kennedy’s “Best and the Brightest” gave us the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and began the escalation of the US Military in Vietnam from advisors to combat troops.The stories of the days of the“Kennedy Camelot,” with which the Media loves to regale us, never happened.The term, itself, was not even used, in reference to the Kennedy Administration, until after the death of JFK. Yes, facts are sometimes inconvenient … as in, oh, say, history.

So far Obama has done absolutely nothing but underscore our belief that he is an empty suit, a puppet being manipulated by someone else pulling his strings.

All this time I was hoping Obama wasn’t as weak as I thought he was. Yet he persists in doing exactly what we had expected, exactly what we had warned Obama supporters of, with the full support of an adoring press who will not miss a single opportunity to prop him up dare he fail.

One question continues to go ‘round in my head. Who is pulling Obama’s strings?Who IS the REAL President?

By J. D. Longstreet

A few days after the election, Conservative leaders met, quietly, in Virginia to draw up battle plans for the fight against Obama and the leftward sprint of Congress.This meeting is said to be the first of many such confabs over the next few weeks.It there was just one topic of discussion I would suggest for them it would be whether conservatives should remain in the GOP or break free and form their own party. You can find the story here:

I’m not privy to what was actually talked about, or discussed, but my fervent hope is that they talked of creating a new conservative political party and pulling all conservatives out of the Republican Party.

Yes, once again, the conservatives are the scapegoats of the GOP for their bungling of the 2008 presidential election.From the viewpoint of someone on the outside looking in, the McCain campaign was, perhaps the worse run campaign I have ever seen in my nearly 7 decades on this planet.It was truly awful.The bluebloods and country club set, the liberals and moderates, made the decision to put John McCain on the ticket as a conservative candidate.See, the first thing you have to understand is… conservatives recognize one another.NONE of us recognized John McCain as a conservative, simply because he is not!So, we conservatives balked. The few conservatives who DID vote for McCain held their noses as they did so.

How many times have you read my scribbling in which I have stated, flat out, that it is impossible for a republican candidate to win a presidential election without the conservative vote?Back in the days of my broadcast commentaries it was a constant theme.It remains today as a thread running throughout all my writings. And yet… McCain tried it… and failed.When conservatives pour their time, talent, money, and most importantly, their zeal and fervor, into a campaign that campaign has the forward momentum of a racecar and the strength of a bulldozer. McCain’s campaign had none of this.Observing the McCain Campaign was akin to watching a car rust!

So, if the so called leaders of the conservative movement want to do something worthwhile they can lead us (the conservatives) out of the GOP and into our own party.I am tired of being the whipping boy for the upper crust within the Grand Old Party.I have had it.They don’t know conservatives until they want our vote or our money.

Understand this, my friends on the left, the conservative movement did not lose on November 4th, the moderates and liberal republicans lost.Harry Truman once said:“Give the voters a choice between a fake republican and a real republican and they’ll choose the real republican every time.”Of course, the same thing can be said of democrats.That’s what happened on November 4th.The only conservative near the campaign was Sarah Palin… and by many accounts… she was not welcomed by the McCain Camp.

If conservatives ever hope to climb to the top of a political party, and really control that party, they/we are going to have to have our own party.It’s a simple as that.

I know it’s tough.I know it will take a long time to organize and get candidates on the ballots in all 50 states, but I see no other alternative short of remaining where we are, in the GOP, serving as a doormat for the elite upper crust of blue bloods and those who frequent the country club.

I had rather put my time and talents toward a party with a platform I believe in, and candidates I believe in, and lose every time than continuing to do that for the GOP only to be sneered at, and told to go to the back of the bus.

Conservatives need national leadership at the top.We haven’t a declared leader, at all.There is no single conservative we can rally around and declare the “Top Dog” today.At the moment the conservative movement is like a ship’s crew without a captain/navigator.We can sail the ship but we can’t plot the course.

One thing is crystal clear, however, conservatives cannot remain in the Republican Party and ever expect to have the respect of the party, nor the chance to lead the party on a conservative course.Our only hope to effect conservative change on the US Government is with our own party.

The Praetorian Guard was a special force of household troops used by Roman Emperors.Augustus saw the need to establish a body of soldiers explicitly loyal to himself. Following the death of Sejanus the Guards began to play an increasingly ambitious and bloody game in the Empire. With the right amount of money, or at will, they assassinated emperors, bullied their own Prefects, or turned on the people of Rome. In 41 Caligula was killed by conspirators from the senatorial class and from the Guard. The Praetorians placed Claudius on the throne, daring the Senate to oppose their decision.

In 1925 Adolf Hitler formed his own personal bodyguard called the Schutzstaffel(SS).The SS was a major Nazi organization under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. The SS grew from a small paramilitary unit to an elite, powerful, force that served as the Fuhrer’s “Praetorian Guard’ the Nazi Party’s “Shield Squadron” and a force with as much political influence as the regular German Armed Forces.Built upon the Nazi racial ideology, the SS, under Heinrich Himmler’s command, is saidto be primarily responsible for many of the war crimes perpetrated by the Nazis during World War Two.

Recently Mr. B. H. Obama President-Elect of the United States of Americasaid the following:

“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

Mrs. Obama said this:

“Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation. That you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

For those of you who traipsed into the voting booth and dropped a ballot for Obama, ask yourselves this: Has Obama described a “New National Brownshirts” organization to make sure you conform to the “Change” he promised to bring you?

Yes, it is called the “Civilian National Security Force.” But what will be its duties? What Obama described is another military unit separate from the current US Military.Other countries have, or had,their national security forces.Countries like the old Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, and Venezuela, and in the past, Hitler’s own “SS,” and let us not forget the Iranian “Republican Guard.”Glancing over this list of nations…did you happen to notice any similarities among them?

Alan Caruba,a friend and fellow blogger,said just a few days ago:“Barack Obama wants to institute a Civilian National Security Force, a vast militia not unlike Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, a personal army. He knows he would need such a force to protect him and to enforce his will on Americans.”Alan went on to say: “If you want to see another civil war, just wait for this new security force to come into being. Obama would need it because the concept of Posse Comitatus forbids the use of the U.S. military to enforce laws within the nation. An army of domestic followers of “the One” would fill that need, assuming that all other law enforcement agencies failed to resist such a horrendous plan. Alan is “spot on” as our Brit cousins used to say.

We have learned that ammunition sales and firearms sales are at an historical high currently within the United States. Americans are preparing to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.Our forefathers put that amendment in the US Constitution for just such emergencies as the one we may be seeing develop right now.

Now, here is the bone chilling truth:SOME American citizens will be, as usual, completely happy to allow the government to do whatever it wants as long as nothing is required of them.However, the majority of Americans will not sit idly by and allow a President or a Congress to go “rogue” on us without resisting with whatever means necessary.

At the risk of being referred to as some sort of Swamp Pundit, allow me to assure you it takes no special skill, no special talent, or gift, (as in a ‘gift” to see into the future), to know there will be domestic violence in America’s future. The country is ruptured now, and Obama’s tossing of salt into the wound with his own “Praetorian Guard” will have no curative effect.In fact, just the opposite will occur.There are a lot of angry Americans between the two seas and short fuses are the order of the day.

When America is finished with its warm and fuzzy group hug, congratulating itself on how good it feels to have elected a black man as President, reality is going to set in.Reality can be a hard thing.The first thing Americans will realize is that the nation is just as divided as it was on November 3rd. They will realize, too, racism is still a fact of life in America, as it is in the rest of the world, and, about six months into the Obama regime, when those voters who were besotted by Obama’s charisma suddenly understand there is no way he can even begin fulfilling the promises he made,“Buyer’s Remorse” will set in. There are going to be some very unsettling times ahead for America.A Presidential Private Army will only make matters worse both for Obama and for the people of America.

Pardon me if I stand and cheer when I read and hear reports of newspaper organizations crumbling and going under, some out of business.Forgive me if I applaud loudly as the “unbiased” media gets it’s due.

It is always good to see the arrogant ones get what’s coming to them and of all the arrogant businesses on the face of the planet; the news media is certainly the most arrogant.

This past election cycle in the United States the News Media dropped all pretence of being unbiased.They decided early on that Obama was their candidate and they did everything possible to promote him and his campaign… and they succeeded.To hell with what the readers and viewers wanted! To hell with being fair!The media knew Obama was the best thing for America and they went about making absolutely sure he was elected.

It was the sorriest, must dishonest, most dishonorable thing I have ever seen done by the news media.

The have been losing subscribers and listeners and viewers by the droves and yet, they hang on to the overt liberalism in their biased reporting — all the while insisting that they are not the least bit biased and that all their reporting is “right down the middle”. Why, even a blind man can see their claims to no bias are a falsity.

Have you ever wondered how blogging suddenly came out of nowhere and became such an overnight success?Well, the bias of the Mainstream Media is your answer.People have grown tired of their false claims and their “in the tank” reporting for all causes liberal and many decided they could do a better job of it by simply telling readers right at the banner head of their website that yes, this site is biased in favor of conservatism, or even liberalism. Surfers on the Internet like that honesty.They surf to a site, see the declaration of it’s biases right on the front page and, Walla, they like it!The Web Log business took off like a rocket and shows no sign of losing strength or popularity among users of the Internet.

For years now, I have been relying on what I refer to as “off shore” media to access news of current events in America.I simply do not trust my own country’s media to supply a straight forward report on what happened, who was involved and when… basically, the fundamentals of a news story, and allow me to draw my own conclusions.I have grown weary of being told what I should think about a news story, how I will be expected to react to that story, and why I should react in a certain way.I’m a big boy.I’m fairly well educated and I have nearly seven decades of experience in a whole lot of things including the broadcast news business.

Will the Mainstream Media recover?Possibly.But I doubt they will survive in the same configuration.Already, many have established a presence on the Internet, experimenting with the “New Media,” if you will. But it will take many decades to recover, even if they are successful.I expect their turf has been lost to the New Media, the Internet. If one could point to any single show of bias from the media as the “coup de grace,” it would have be their almost total and blatant bias for Obama the democratic candidate for President of the US. (Now President-Elect)It will take at least a generation for Americans to finally “get over it” as they say.Me? I will never forgive them for it.

On the other hand, it just might be that the News business has reverted to it’s past when all the news outlets were overtly biased.In which case the newspaper business, as a hard copy, on paper, delivered to your door each morning, is dead.It’s as dead as their objectivity.